Question about the Assumption of Mary

[Zekariya]

Not quite correct. She didn’t “drop it”, rather “it fell”.

Meaning Mary “ascended” supine with body and soul divided (i.e. dead).
Eastern art confirms this.

Later Western art of the Assumption has her “ascend” standing and alive.
This later art appears theologically “innovative.”

That is interesting. I have always heard that she dropped it as ConstantineTG has said.

 

[katholikos12]

St. Thomas wasn’t there, he’s late. This mirrors the events of Jesus’ Resurrection. But instead of being the odd man out, it was to St. Thomas whom the vision of the Assumption was granted. And as the Theotokos ascended into heaven, she dropped her belt/sash/girdle as proof of what happened and for St. Thomas to bring to the other Apostles. To this day that relic of the Theotokos remains with us.

Where is the relic held?

 

[Surnaturel]

It is more likely that she did die, though. Since she is the human being most conformed to Christ her Son, it is likely that she shared with him in physical death as well.

Also, quite ancient tradition venerates the tomb of Mary in Jerusalem, at the foot of the Mount of Olives. The story goes that she “fell asleep” near the Cenacle, where the Abbey of Dormition stands today, and the apostles brought her down to that tomb, from where she was taken up. That tradition was discredited for quite a while, until recent discoveries at the Tomb of Mary church, which found 2nd century ruins there. It appears to be a very ancient Marian site.

Good post!

Many modern Catholic theologians like Karl Rahner, for example, have posited that the finality of death is necessary and therefore Mary did experience death prior to the Assumption or in it. This coheres with the Orthodox doctrine of Mary’s Dormition.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

She died. It has been the teaching of the Church from the beginning. I did a small writeup when I was Eastern Catholic defending the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox tradition of the Dormition of the Theotokos. The document that dogmatized the Assumption mentions Mary’s death several times, even from Roman Catholic sources. It was never removed as part of the faith that Mary died. She died and was resurrected and assumed. She is the fulfillment of God’s plan of salvation, and our hope that the same fate awaits us.

Blessed Pope John Paul II also said that the reason Munificentissimus Deus does not categorically state “After Mary died” is NOT because it is an open question to Catholics. The reason was that they didn’t want to make other dogmatic statements to cloud the issue of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption. IOW, it just wasn’t the place to get into the whole dogmatic decree of Mary’s death. JPII went on to say that Mary DID in fact die, in order to conform more perfectly with her Son. Link to speech

So the Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught that the Virgin Mary died. It wasn’t until recent times, ESPECIALLY after Munificentissimus Deus, that the whole issue of Mary not dying has gained traction.

There are very real difficulties with that whole scenario, not just doctrinally, but logistically speaking. In a nutshell:

Were there witnesses to Mary just being Assumed while still living?

Because if there weren’t, then that would have caused great distress among all of the Apostles and Disciples that something bad had happened. Somebody like the Mother of God suddenly becomes a missing person in a hostile world? This scenario is the most unbelievable, and does not bear the stamp of a Divine event.

OR,

There were witnesses, and yet, unlike normal witnesses they never gave testimony to the great event? That as well is very unlikely, as there is NO ancient tradition of Mary being assumed alive. The Ancient tradition is that she died.

Now some may have the same objection to her Assumption. But the lack of ANY disturbance in the ancient apostolic Church, regarding the disappearance of the BVM, renders the likelihood of witnesses to her death very probable. That is normative, and unremarkable.

Let us further consider whether it be true, as the legends say, that the Apostles discovered her tomb to be empty after 3 days. Why was that not published? I would say because they did not actually WITNESS her Assumption, but through Divine Inspiration understood the MEANING of her empty grave, and because it would possibly be a distraction in their spreading of the true Gospel message of the Resurrection of the Lord. In this scenario, we would have exactly what we DO have today. A tradition of Mary dieing, and a tradition that she was Assumed into heaven, although it is shrouded in a certain amount of mystery from the world at large by the lack of any Scriptural account. IOW, only the Church was able to reveal this Divine mystery.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That is interesting. I have always heard that she dropped it as ConstantineTG has said.

If we seek the truth its always good to read the actual sources rather than rely on Chinese whispers and vague memory.

If we look up the most ancient Transitus Mariae manuscripts it is clear.
Mary was drawn up to heaven on a bier held by cords, supine, by 4 angels.
She was “asleep” (ie an Eastern euphemism for dead) so she could not have actively dropped anything.

This death is further “articulated” in early icons showing Jesus floating in the clouds holding a little human (hormonculus). That represents Mary’s separated soul. The bier holds her body. She is defintely dead (defined as the separation of body and soul) and supine.

However her dead body is nevertheless incorrupt (hence she is said to be “asleep” rather than fully “dead”). So it is not quite the normal death. I believe this is what the word “Dormition” (instead of “Death”) is really telling us.

How is that possible?
Perhaps a vegetative “soul” remains (cf Aquinas).
Perhaps it is a special act of God.
We don’t really know, theology has never tried to go into the details of this as far as I know.

Likewise the word “Assumption” (instead of “Resurrection+Ascension”) hints at not one but two further truths:
(a) she was passively drawn up (ie by God’s power not her own intrinsic power)
(b) she was supine/dead/unanimated in her “rising” and soul rejoined body in heaven not on earth.

Recent Western Assumption artworks actually contradict the above theology.

 

[Zekariya]

If we seek the truth its always good to read the actual sources rather than rely on Chinese whispers and vague memory.

If we look up the most ancient Transitus Mariae manuscripts it is clear.
Mary was drawn up to heaven on a bier held by cords, supine, by 4 angels.
She was “asleep” (ie an Eastern euphemism for dead) so she could not have actively dropped anything.

This death is further "articulated in early icons showing jesus floating in the clouds holding a little human (hormonculus). That represents Mary’s separated soul. The bier hold her body. She is defintely dead (defined as the separation of body and soul) and supine.

However her dead body is nevertheless incorrupt (hence she is said to be “asleep” rather than fully “dead”). How is that possible?
Perhaps a vegetative “soul” remains (cf Aquinas).
Perhaps it is a special act of God.
We don’t really know, theology has never tried to go into the details of this as far as I know.

I understand what you are saying. That makes sense. I know that her body was assumed while dead. I always thought that the story of Thomas happened after her body was reunited with her soul.